FINAL MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL WORKING ROUP …susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/emas/documents/Construction... · Edificio Expo, C/. Inca Garcilaso 3, E-41092 Seville - Spain

EUROPEAN COMMISSION JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (Seville) Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit

Edificio Expo, C/. Inca Garcilaso 3, E-41092 Seville - Spain Telephone: switchboard: + 34 95 448 8318. Fax: + 34 95 448 279 [email protected] direct line +34 95 448 8424 [email protected] direct line +34 95 448 0568 [email protected] direct line +34 95 448 8335 web site: http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu

FINAL MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP FOR THE REFERENCE

DOCUMENT ON BEST ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN THE

CONSTRUCTION SECTOR under article 46(1) of Eco-Management and Audit Scheme, EC regulation 1221/2009

Brussels, 22nd and 23rd of November 2011

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Opening of the workshop and Introduction to EMAS Sectoral Reference Documents....................... 1 3. Purpose and Goals of the Meeting......................................................................................................... 2 4. Overview of the information exchange ................................................................................................. 2 5. Approach, findings, changes in scope, gaps and commenting ............................................................. 2 6. Indicators and benchmarks .................................................................................................................... 3

6.1. Building design............................................................................................................................... 3 6.2. Construction.................................................................................................................................... 5 6.3. Construction Products .................................................................................................................... 6 6.4. Remaining work ............................................................................................................................. 7

7. Way Forward.......................................................................................................................................... 7 8. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Annex 1. List of Participants (plus absences from the Kick-Off Meeting) ............................................ 27 Annex 2. Meeting Agenda ....................................................................................................................... 29

1. Introduction The Community Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (hereafter EMAS) was originally established in 1993 by Regulation (EC) No 1836/93. This voluntary scheme was originally restricted to companies from industrial sectors. EMAS was revised in 2001 by Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 allowing participation by organisations from all economic sectors, which is currently in force. Now, a second revision of EMAS has been undertaken, called EMAS III. This new regulation foresees the development of sectoral reference documents on best environmental management practice (Article 46). The goal of this workshop was to bring stakeholders together to discuss on the current draft version of the reference document for the construction sector.

2. Opening of the workshop and Introduction to EMAS Sectoral Reference Documents The chairman, Harald Schoenberger, opened the session and welcomed the participants. After a brief explanation of the meeting procedure, an introduction was given. Working group members presented themselves and summarised relevant experience in environmental assessment, the Construction sector, and EMAS. The meeting agenda (Annex 1) was accepted without changes.

2

3. Purpose and Goals of the Meeting A short presentation was given by the chairman. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and conclude on suitable indicators and benchmarks of excellence, refine the list of best practices, exchange information and to have the feedback and the input from the technical working group to finalise the document. It was remarked that there are still gaps in the document that should be filled and one of the goals of the workshop is to get information and recommendations in order to remove these gaps. After the presentation, it was further explained that the concept of the reference document is not prescriptive and it is descriptive. Some attention should be paid to the application of the document to the EMAS regulation Annex IV, where some sector specific indicators may be required to be reported in the EMAS statement, where appropriate.

4. Overview of the information exchange Main contributions to the document were summarised, including participation in different meetings, site visits, expert meetings, publications and other projects. Extended deadline of June 2012 proposed, with an additional commenting round. Participants alerted to the timeframe and requested to remain engaged over this period.

5. Approach, findings, changes in scope, gaps and commenting The approach consists mainly in the identification of front-runner approaches, which are assumed to be much more proactive and apply best practices in a systematic way. It is important to develop best practices, indicators and benchmarks using a process level. Some other elements, as the importance of site visits, consideration of a wide scope to account for important indirect effects, and the avoidance of questionnaires were also explained. Distinction is made between environmental impact, and influence over environmental impact, for different stages and actors along the value chain, from inception and land planning through to demolition and waste management. Civil works is exclude and, at the end of the meeting, it was decided to make a separate chapter with the main links to building construction (see 6.4.). Additional emphasis is now placed on inception and planning process, construction processes and building products. Important gaps were listed, including performance data for buildings, environmental criteria for buildings and construction products, biodiversity aspects, etc., (see slides). During the presentation, it was stated that some best performances were observed in SMEs. It was suggested that SMEs are having good performances because of the cost-efficiency of many measures. As well, it may be easier for small companies to monitor and to show environmental performance than for big companies managing several hundreds of sites. Big companies are also making great efforts and can react faster. Nevertheless, the identification of front runners of construction companies may not be possible for construction organisations. Long-term frontrunners have not yet been identified who implement best practice across wide range of processes and for a long time. The diversity of construction processes also hamper clear comparability. Nevertheless, business culture has strong influence on the environmental management and on the achieved performance. It may be easier for SMEs to implement environmental management because there are fewer people to train and fewer processes and sites to coordinate action across and to demonstrate environmental performance, although the size of the company should not be the excuse

3

for best practice implementation and monitoring in big companies. As well, performance reporting is seen as a controversial issue due to confidentiality and competitiveness by large companies. As well, it was recommended to develop some definitions to be used in all chapters. Following clarification of process level indicators for EMAS registration, DG Environment highlighted that process level is a complement for the organisational core indicators. The use of too many indicators is seen as a main drawback for EMAS, especially if they are somehow mandatory. The main outcome of the process is the comprehensive description of best practices and the applicability of key indicators should be clearly stated in the document. It was proposed to develop a short list of indicators. Final user of the indicator should also be specified in the document. A new document developed by the Spanish advisory board for the certification of construction companies, CACEC (acronym in Spanish) will provide information on indicators for the construction sector that they have developed. The number of indicators is of about several hundreds.

6. Indicators and benchmarks The understanding of best environmental management practice, techniques, indicators and benchmarks of excellence was given (see attached slides). Questions to the TWG were summarised, including best practice examples, indicators, benchmarks relevant experts and organisations, etc.

6.1. Building design This section of the document is focused on the design options to minimise energy and water consumption during use phase and waste generation during deconstruction. In total, 17 techniques are described. Specific energy consumption, expressed as kWh/m2yr or equivalent, is the primary indicator for building energy consumption. Sub-sector benchmarks are required owing to variation across building types. There is not a proposed methodology. It will be always referred to exemplary existing methodologies. It was agreed to use Passive House as an example of best practice and, therefore, the methodology for specific energy consumption recommended in this standard should be used. The benchmark of excellence from the Passive House is 15 kWh/m2yr for heating (new buildings) and 25 kWh/m2yr for existing buildings. Nevertheless, Passive House is used as an exemplary approach and others schemes with similar criteria may be acceptable (regarding to best practices implementation). If the methodology is not common, comparability is not assured. Correction factors, if available, should be proposed among exemplary schemes or calculation methods. As well, some difficulties are recognised regarding to methodologies and different definitions may be given to heated area, primary energy demand or final used energy demand or consumption, or to usable area (habitable, heated, etc.). It is proposed to insert a table summarising problems and definitions, and suggests consideration of climate-related standards. The climate applicability (using e.g. Severity climate index and addressing Clima project for cooling in the Mediterranean) of the Passive House standard will be referred. The applicability of the standard to cooling demand in warmer countries and the applicability of the benchmark on heating to Nordic countries will also be studied in detail. A new developed standard for cooling has been already developed by the Passive House institute and may be reflected in the next draft document. The problem for specifying a benchmark for cooling energy is that cooling electricity may not be sub-monitored and may be benchmarked by the use of best practices.

4

Alternative and complementary indicators will be described in the text, as the kWh/person/day to compare energy consumption more widely as referred in the 'Sustainable energy without the hot air' book by David MacKay. This indicator also reflects differences between countries and urban/rural areas in terms of average space demand for inhabitants. The embodied energy of building materials will also be reflected in the document. Here, it is important to specify that it will be covered in a separate chapter for building products, and indicators and benchmarks developed there are complementary to this section. Although the U-value is a good technical parameter to benchmark the quality of buildings, it is not useful for the basic understanding of the performance of a building. The use of 10 W/m2 may be used, but its applicability should be well explained in the final text, as it may depend also on the efficiency of heating or cooling systems. About the use of integrative standards, definition across different climates and different approaches for (life cycle) zero or plus energy buildings. This definition will be provided according to existing approaches. Also, location can lead to major constraints – e.g. whether possible to install large wind turbine onsite. In the final document, more relevance to the use of integrative approaches will be done and the benchmark will be referred to the coverage with renewable energy. Lighting energy benchmarking should be made with two indicators: the specific power density, W/m2 and specific energy use (kWh/m2yr). Best practice on also lighting planning (including different strategies and automatic control systems) should be explained in the text. EN 15193 will be used for benchmarks, but more data may be needed to set realistic values. As well, IPTS will incorporate additional information. Indicator for renewable energy sources will be the coverage of total needs with 'clean' energy source. A clear definition of what a renewable energy source will be provided in the text, with a clear distinction on how to differentiate purchasing, from own produced energy (localised) and the usability of certification schemes. For water consumption, best practice is based on monitoring all building units and processes, implementing leak detection and integration with building management systems. The definition of building unit will be elaborated for the indicator and for the benchmark, based on the current definition of the Energy Performance of Buildings directive. Water consumption per person per day is a relevant indicator, although it includes consumer behaviour. It is considered significant as its 'theoretical' value can be used to benchmark the current technology for the processes inside the building. Subsector approach is needed for the definition. Recovery of grey and rainwater is a best practice, but there are some ineherent difficulties to benchmark it. Process approach is needed, with climate considerations. Meeting demand on specific processes such as toilet flushing can be considered in a benchmarking process. IPTS will propose framework methodology based on BSI and UN guidance, and will refine percentage indicator. Qualitative benchmark proposed regarding design for deconstruction, and designing out waste (some contributions were offered here). England example was explained: Site Waste Management Plan Regulations require designers (architects, electricians, others) to demonstrate waste prevention measures. IPTS will propose new conclusion to reflect this, and emphasise waste prevention. For waste prevention during deconstruction, it is needed to distinguish between between hazardous and non-hazardous waste, and to go further up supply chain to refer to provision of recyclable materials, but that this subject at early stage of development. DGNB example in Germany awards points for this aspect, so certified buildings could provide examples of best practice. Links with construction and products chapters will be established. Classification per type of waste and quantity (including its monitoring) should be defined in the document. The high number of products is a

5

drawback for this task. Grades of recycling will be defined (a proposal for low and high grade recycling was received). Regarding to design-out of waste, it was suggested to use 14006 guidelines for incorporating ecodesign in environmental management systems and it was also recommended to propose measurable, comparable and affordable indicators.

6.2. Construction Construction waste To develop indicators, it was recommended to use the new publication indicators from CACEC to be used by all sizes of construction companies and to refer them to ISO 14031 and ISO 14033 classification. Nevertheless, an exhaustive list of indicators can not be really provided in the document, as proposed indicators are linked to the implementation of best environmental management practices. Some discussion was held regarding to the 'number of claims' as an indicator because it reflects impacts on people. Nevertheless, it should be taken with caution. It is not possible to have a comparable benchmark owing to different types of construction sites and different construction wastes, which should be differentiated in a final indicator. Some inputs were offered at this point. The 0% or 0 kg recyclable waste sent to landfill was refused as benchmark and a 5% benchmark (based on current construction companies benchmarks) will be established. This benchmark will be disclosed per type of waste and incineration with heat recovery will not be excluded. As well, infrastructure for waste management can be a limitation for the benchmark, which has to be described in the applicability section. There was a proposal on describing organisational level (or at least different business units) indicators and benchmarks for waste management and also to describe best practices on how contractors control waste management after given to waste managers. There was agreement on the benchmark for less than 5% sent recyclable waste to landfill or incineration without energy recovery, to be differentiated according o waste types. Materials reuse and recycling are techniques linking between construction activities, waste managers, designers and products manufacturers. It was proposed to link it with designing out waste and building end-of-life practices. It is important to recognise the limited capacity of the contractors. Onsite separation of material by constructors, ready for reuse, could be best practice and the exemplary target of 25% recycled concrete for Olympics was proposed. Some building standards already refer to this, with a value of 20% achievable, and there is an ISO14021 standard relevant, with reference to pre and post consumer recycling, with need to break down for different materials. ENCORD draft waste protocol being developed will be sent to IPTS. Dust minimisation It was proposed to differentiate between particulate matter from heavy machinery and dust from the site – which have different health impacts and different control mechanisms. However, on a mass basis, machinery PM is very small proportion. It was proposed to describe dust prevention plans, which may be differentiated according to location (e.g. urban or rural area). Deconstruction phase not included within scope of this technique and should be included. Dust prevention efficiency is preferred. Water Water monitoring should be included as an indicator of best practice, differentiated according to source (current monitoring practices maybe are far from best practice in some cases) and by use if possible. Some data will be provided by group members. Water costs are related mostly to disposal where e.g. river water is extracted, and no distinction between potable and non-potable water, except for the water quality needed for some structural concrete. A quantitative benchmark may then be developed from these data in the future. Control of discharged wastewater is controlled according to regulations. Maybe, implementation of a water management plan at all sites could be best practice, but

6

costs of this may be too high. Application of SUDS is best practice, but this depends on other factors (i.e. not implemented for construction sites alone and maybe mandatory). In slide 22, it should be added that polluted water should pass into sewage network (if present) as the benchmark. Energy consumption It is impossible to benchmark across different types of sites. Comprehensive reporting on energy consumption may be considered as a benchmark. Not all energy is under control of the primary contractor – subcontractors use energy and data needs to be collated from these. Absolute value should be used, but reference to area area as a denominator is most practical method as methodologies exist for calculating building floor area, and emphasises importance of process-based benchmarks. Usually, cost control is performed and no data on litres of fuel or kWh, so comprehensive monitoring, collating data from suppliers, would represent significant progress. It is better to relate energy consumption to building operation. For one site, 40% of electricity use was detected for heating cabins, compared with 12% for cranes. Some data will be provided for this section. ISO 16001 for energy management is relevant for the description. Environmental management and monitoring of sites Site-level management should include weekly checks as best practice, although a minimum monthly basis will be described in the document. There is a strong importance of site based compliance lists filled out every week that can be checked by verifiers or other site inspectors. This practice may constitute basic EMAS or ISO requirements, but it was reminded that the scope is beyond certified or registered EMS. For certified systems, it will be specified in the applicability description. As well, the use of management indicators maybe useful. For public tenders, it was suggested that the document should recommend to move from price-based to quality-based tendering, but this requires that clients are willing to pay for quality. As well, criteria for private tenders should also be reflected in the document. Clients should consider lifecycle costs, which will reflect some environmental efficiency measures. For this, there are already some indicators that could be used. Adherence to main contractor's management system may be too restrictive. It is difficult to achieve training across all workers, and suggests at least foremen should be trained. It was proposed to use hours per year, but this would not reflect the quality of the training. Others Noise prevention should be included in the document. As well, cabins energy and water consumption should be covered in the document.

6.3. Construction Products Labelled products according to type 1 labels are preferred and the benchmark should be 100% for more than one product categories. This is maybe not applicable in some countries where the availability of eco-labelled construction products is low. Then, environmental criteria from labels and equivalent criteria can be used to choose non-certified products, although priority is given to third party verified protocols. This will be described in the text. Exclusion criteria are also very important for this best practice. The use of GPP criteria, or the use of equivalent approaches to include non-certified products complaint with equivalent criteria will also be described as best practice. This will be reflected under applicability. As well, IPTS will provide further information for different categories of product. The role of ISO Type 3 labels of relevance (environmental product declarations). Criteria will be developed for the exclusion of hazardous products. It was suggested to cross-link with Ecolabel for office buildings, DGNB in Germany for 170 substances banned in relation to indoor air quality and other certification schemes. Ispra JRC is working towards standardisation of limit values for indoor air quality and should be taken into account. Chain of custody certificate requirements should reflect the type of product (e.g. FSC mix versus FSC certification). It is proposed to avoid wood preservatives, which is covered in techniques for the

7

avoidance of hazardous substances. Wood also may be associated with indoor air emissions. Relevant environmental criteria for the standards will be proposed. IPTS will propose a number of relevant or exemplary certification schemes in the final draft.

6.4. Remaining work Land planning will be developed with reference to relevant environmental criteria for new construction and renovation and also for building inception. Standard ISO 21929-1 relating to classification of brown and green field sites, DGNB criteria for city districts and other relevant schemes will be used. Biodiversity aspects will be included here. Operation and maintenance should be controlled using indicators per person per day (e.g. for water and energy), referring to measurable behaviour in different types of buildings (link to the Swiss initiative 2000 Watts society, looking at how average energy consumption can be reduced to 2 kWh per person per day). Building end of life: it was recommended to look for indicators and criteria in existing approaches (e.g. DGNB). To include reuse of building for other purpose also important – e.g. shift from offices to apartments. Nevertheless, this should be considered as reuse and not as end-of-life. As well, it was recommend to set the definition of risk (e.g. as in ISO standards) when discussion on the Demolition Recovery Index defined by UK Institution of Civil Engineers'. About civil works, it was decided not to cover comprehensively this section. Then, the new chapter should include relevant best practices with strong cross-links or synergies with building construction. Netherlands has developed a lot of work on this, so contacts will be sent to IPTS.

7. Way Forward New deadlines are summarized in the table below. Written comments to be sent before 9/1/2012

New draft with filled gaps will be published in the IPTS webpage by

15/4/2012

Written comments on the new draft to be sent before

1/6/2012

Final draft to be published in the IPTS webpage by

30/6/2012

Tele or videoconference (to be organised by IPTS)

April 2012

8. Conclusions Next pages show conclusions slides, as presented at the end of the meeting. There was a comment on the inclusion of GPP environmental criteria best practice application for business to business construction consents.



9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26



Annex 1. List of Participants (plus absences from the Kick-Off Meeting) (Absents in Italics) Participant Organisation Country

Harald Schoenberger European Commission JRC-IPTS Spain

David Styles European Commission JRC-IPTS Spain

José Luis Galvez European Commission JRC-IPTS Spain

Gilles Vincent European Commission DG-ENV Belgium

Paula Gomes European Commission DG-ENV Belgium

Rolf-Jan Hoeve European Commission DG-ENV Belgium

Manfred Fuchs European Commission DG-ENTR Belgium

Josefine Lindblom European Commission DG-ENV Belgium

Mathias Friebel GWÖ, Gesellschaft für WirtschaftsÖkologie Germany

Maria Passalacqua Club EMAS Spain

José Luis Valdés Aenor - CACEC Spain

Carmen Lara ACCIONA Infraestructuras - CACEC Spain

Antonio Burgueño FCC Construcción Spain

Ricardo Cortés Seopan Spain

Alberto Bonilla Tecnalia Spain

Agnes Vorbrodt-Schurma Polish Green Building Council Poland

Michael Hiete DFIU-KIT Germany

28

Participant Organisation Country

Marion Hammerl Bodensee Stiftung Germany

Franz Fiala ANEC Austria

Eberhard K. Seifert IöB-office South/Karlsruhe Germany

Martin Baxter Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEMA) UK

Aurelie Bois Eco-Conseil Entreprise Belgium

Phillipe Taillard Agence Bruxelloise pour l’Entreprise (ABE) Belgium

Massimo Cassinari ICMQ Italy

Guri Krigsvoll Sintef Norway

Arie de Graaf MKB NEDERLAND (SME UEAPME) Netherlands

Ana Cunha SB Alliance - Qualitel France

Marta Gangolells Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya Spain

Miguel del Valle Contratas y Obras Spain

Rainer Bareiss Züblin Germany

Ian Fawthrop Willmott Dixon Construction UK

Norbert Pralle Strabag Konzern Germany

Guido Hoff DIN Consumer Council Germany

Laura Soto Instituto Valenciano de la Edificación (IVE) Spain

Marta Borso di Carminati IVE Spain



Annex 2. Meeting Agenda